I found the resurgence of piracy ominously coincidental, considering the hype surrounding radical economic transformation in South Africa. My frustration with the quality of debate in our country is that playing the man is a much more appealing sport than playing the ball; but back to that later.

Ishan Tharoor, writing for Time, aptly described Somali pirates as “not desperate bandits, experts say, rather savvy opportunists in the most lawless corner of the planet”.

Why would fishermen turn to pirates and carry out the most daring attacks, claiming close to $200 million in ransom?

Since the collapse of the government in Somalia in 1991, Tharoor writes, “Somali waters have become the site of an international free-for-all, with fishing fleets from around the world illegally plundering Somali stocks and freezing out the country’s own rudimentarily-equipped fishermen”.

He quotes a UN report, estimating that about $300 million worth of seafood was stolen from the coast of Somalia annually. Sounds familiar?

Global giants use their power, experience and networks to marginalise locals and plausibly explain their unfair advantage as globalisation. African governments respond more enthusiastically to international investors than to their own people – who are patient and understanding, but can turn nasty when disillusioned.

The International Crime Commission and the International Maritime Bureau reported in 2014 that “piracy has reached its lowest levels in six years, with 264 attacks worldwide in 2013, a 40% drop since Somali piracy peaked in 2011”.

The active intervention by the international community, meant the Horn of Africa could breathe again; briefly. Regrettably, the intervention was merely to protect their cargo and crew or contain Al Qaeda, not to help the people of Somalia.

Now, piracy seems on the rise again in Somalia (and President Donald Trump is talking tough), after it was tamed from 2014 as a result of international patrols. Ransom payable got unbearable and maritime traffic became too risky or too expensive to insure, rich nations of the world got involved to stem the piracy in Somali waters.

This, however, did not address the core of the problem: securing the interests of the little guy in Somalia, toiling daily to support their family; someone like Ahmed Mohammed Ali.

This 27-year old fisherman from Durduri told Jessica Hatcher of Al Jazeera in October 2015 that he had had to abandon fishing because although anti-hijacking patrols had stopped piracy, the big illegal fishing boats had returned. These were the same boats that had triggered piracy in the first place.

In Africa, our leaders tend to react more enthusiastically to the World Economic Forum or Fitch or the World Bank.

Roads get resurfaced and services improved when the Commonwealth comes to town; but when a service delivery protest erupts in a small village, the leaders get dismissed for their ingratitude or are accused of being somebody else’s political pawn.

When black South Africans complained about Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) not delivering broad-based benefits, some in the ruling party got so defensive. Phrases like “there is nothing wrong with black people getting rich” or even “I did not struggle to be poor” were echoed.

As factually valid as these were, they missed the point: the majority were asking for their share of the gig, and they were feeling left out.

Twenty-three years since 1994, high levels of unemployment, income inequality, inept state-owned enterprises, pedestrian economic growth and cracks in the ruling elite are conspiring to breed more defensive tactics among the well off.

Just as Somalia does not need a partial international patrol as intervention, but decisive solutions to the problems that are elbowing ordinary fishermen from their rightful maritime economy, South Africa could do without the name-calling, scapegoating, political demagoguery, recycled concepts such as radical economic transformation or the attack on white monopoly capital.

It needs a South Africa First mindset, which prioritises results and lasting broad-based socio-economic impact.

* Kgomoeswana is author of Africa is Open for Business, a media commentator and public speaker on African business affairs, and a weekly columnist for African Independent – Twitter Handle: @VictorAfrica

** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.

The Sunday Independent

Attendees included British Prime Minister David Cameron, Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, President Museveni and recently- elected Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, along with representatives from numerous international organisations and foreign governments. Having undergone a 20-year-long civil war, Somalia is now being led by its first widely-recognised government for more than 20 years and is showing vast signs of improvement.

There has been a reported rise in Somalis from the diaspora returning to the country, an increase in the availability of education for children and a sign that the government is extending its influence beyond the capital Mogadishu, a city which is starting to show signs of economic recovery despite continued terror attacks.

The conference involved much discussion regarding possible strategies for the way forward in Somalia. However, it has left more questions than answers and unveiled the numerous issues, actors and topics of debate which can be posed when it comes to what was once known as the ‘Pearl of the Indian Ocean.’ As was expected, a total of £50 million was pledged by nations including America, Britain and China to be put towards building the Somali army and police force. Britain then went on to pledge an additional £35 million (approximately $54 million) to further strengthen security forces and protect the Somali coastline from pirates.

The European Union committed to providing approximately $57 million to train and strengthen the police and judiciary. In terms of the humanitarian crisis which has occurred due to famine, Britain also committed to provide $225 million. Cameron emphasised the interests of the Somali people. “After two decades of bloodshed and some of the worst poverty on earth, hope is alive in Somalia, now it is time to fulfil the hope for the people of Somalia. That is what they have been living and waiting for, and we must not let them down.”

As wonderful as it would be to believe that the actions and involvements of the British and their fellow contributors are entirely altruistic, perhaps it is best not to delve into such idealism. Western governments have always been honest about the threats posed to them by the rise of ‘terrorism and extremism.’

The British premier himself has stated: “These challenges are not just issues for Somalia. They matter to Britain – and to the whole international community, because when young minds are poisoned by radicalism and they go on to export terrorism and extremism, the security of the whole world is at stake.”

Some cynics would go a step further and acknowledge the natural resources which Somalia harbours. It is in a strategic location and its recovery from a 20-year war means it is a welcoming prospect for large British companies. Perhaps this too is reason for Britain’s continued interest and involvement in the country. The greater cynics among us suggest that Turkey’s surprising involvement in Somalia has also motivated increased British interest.

So busy have Western states been in watching China in Africa that they may have not expected Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan’s visit to Somalia in 2011. The Turkish approach to aid in Somalia has boosted its popularity with the people and provided Turkey with the opportunity to expand economically in Africa, which perhaps is a worrying prospect for competing governments.

In terms of the extremist threat particularly from al-Queda linked al- Shabab, one wonders if participation in such a conference may just worsen the situation. A statement by al-Shabab leader Mukhtar Abu Zubeyr expressed disapproval of the conference. Much of the grievances held by the organisation, stem from the continued involvement of Western countries in Somalia.

Zubeyr stated that the aim of the conference and the international community at large was to undermine Islamic Law in Somalia, gain access to the country’s mineral wealth and impose Western ideals under the guise of morality and cooperation.  He encouraged further acts of terrorism and the following day seven people in Mogadishu were killed as a result of a suicide attack.

Though there is no negotiating with terrorists, the above brings about two issues for debate; firstly, the continuing suicide attacks and the number of young people subscribing to al-Shabab views, suggests dissatisfaction within parts of the Somali populace which cannot be ignored. Secondly, is growing relations with the West the solution for this? Furthermore, is strengthening the army and fighting violence with violence, necessarily going to bring about the change so required in the country?

When looking at the success of the African Union Mission in Somalia (Amisom), it seems that Western government assistance with funding African troops has proven to be a success in Somalia. Uganda, Burundi and Kenya are just some of the countries who have led the fight against al-Shabab and brought stability to the region. America along with a number of other states has continued to contribute millions of dollars and weaponry to the African Union Mission.

Figures released by the UN suggest that almost 3,000 AU peacekeepers have been killed in Somalia in recent years. The alleged sidelining of President Museveni and President Kenyatta at the conference makes one wonder whether the British government have acknowledged the contribution of Somalia’s neighbours in this process. This then brings us to what was perhaps the most neglected issue at the conference and can be considered key in creating an environment of peace and stability in Somalia, that of internal dialogue and domestic relations within the country and its autonomous regions.

In 2012, a similar conference was held in Turkey which encouraged dialogue between representatives of Somalia and Somaliland. Somaliland is considered by much of the international community as an autonomous region of Somalia; it has, however, functioned as an independent state for a number of years.  No representative of Somaliland was present at the UK- Somali a Conference, partly in protest at the UK government not recognising it as a separate country.

The lack of encouragement in involving Somaliland in this conference is baffling at best. Surely, domestic unity and relations should be priority in the case of a country like Somalia which has suffered internal tensions for years.

Also, Somaliland has largely enjoyed a peaceful and perhaps good level of stability for a number of years.  Part of the reason for this was the 1993 Conference of Elders which involved a council of 150 elders representing each clan meeting to create institutions, vote on issues related to governance and disarmament and ensure inclusive political representation.   Surely, this example is enough proof that any conference regarding peace in Somalia must emphasise actions which need to address internal challenges.

There are a number of clans and semi- autonomous regions in the country which have held back from openly supporting and openly challenging the new government.  Promises of federalism, decentralised power and equal distribution of resources and authority have allowed for a fragile environment of peace and cooperation. In order to strengthen this, it is as important to encourage the usage of localised conflict resolution mechanisms as it is to deal with terrorists, pirates and external threats.

In the case of Somalia, as with other conflicts, the real victims have been the civilians caught in the crossfire, as goes the famous saying ‘when two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.’ If channelled in the right way, perhaps the funding and commitment of cooperation will finally bring peace to the Somali people, many of whom have perhaps experienced hell on earth.

However, in this situation another African proverb comes to mind, ‘Cross the river in a crowd and the crocodile won’t eat you.’ One can only hope that in the case of Somalia, clarity prevails in terms of who the crocodiles are.

samiraa3@hotmail.com

Not only in Istanbul, seen here in January, but across Turkey, there is a feeling that the country is taking off economically. Its recent growth has outpaced all of the European Union economies.

It is a great time to be in Turkey. Before the oppressive heat of summer sets in, the countryside is a dazzling green and spring’s promise is ubiquitous.

The explosive growth of China, India and, to a lesser extent Brazil, have received far more global attention. But in its own way Turkey has emerged as a powerhouse with tentacles reaching deep into Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans and the Middle East – re-establishing traditional connections that ended with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

A brutal civil war rages interminably nearby in Syria. But here in Adana the sense that the country’s agricultural heartland is on a roll is almost as palpable as it is hundreds of kilometres away in the thriving sprawls of Istanbul and Ankara.

Turkey still counts on hordes of visitors who come for the sun and sea and to marvel at the towering minarets and bazaars where Christendom and Islam and Europe and Asia meet. But tourism and farming are the old ways in Turkey. Its future can be seen in the copies of the Financial Times being closely read every morning by businessmen crowding the breakfast room at Adana’s Hilton Hotel. An American engineer brought over to inspect boilers at a group of factories to ensure they are world class told me this week of his amazement at how Turkey had achieved so much with so little buzz.

Only three years ago Turkey was experiencing an annual growth rate of nine per cent. After more than a decade of phenomenal growth, that figure dropped to 2.2 per cent last year. Still, that performance was considerably better than all the EU economies and growth is touted to be a more robust four per cent this year.

Turkey has become Iraq’s largest trading partner since the wars there have ebbed. Much of the money comes from oil and gas business conducted with Iraq’s Kurds.

This breakthrough may help ease tensions between Turks and the country’s restive Kurdish minority.

Turkey has major energy plans of its own in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea and is aggressively seeking foreign help to build a second nuclear power plant.

Led by construction companies, which have become international conglomerates, Turkey has huge and growing commercial interests in energy-rich Central Asia.

To promote its interests, the government has celebrated the similarity between Turkish and the Turkic languages spoken by tens of millions there. This long dormant historic connection has permitted Turkish soap operas to develop a passionate following in unexpected places such as Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. But then Slovaks and Egyptians rave about Turkish soaps, too.

Nothing better illustrates Turkey’s boom than the exploding route map of Turkish Airlines. Like the Persian Gulf carriers, Turkey’s national airline has been merrily connecting Asian, Middle Eastern and European destinations. In so doing, they have all cut deeply into the business of carriers from Australasia and Europe.

But unlike its Gulf rivals, Turkish Airlines has a second lane. It has become the biggest international gateway to southern Russia, Central Asia and other remnants of the Soviet empire such as Moldova, Georgia and Armenia.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Turkey+taken+flight/8233017/story.html#ixzz2QGLWUVpT 

It is may be a mark of prejudice that, until recently, the mention of Somalia would, for me, only conjure up images of civil war and famine.

But for some years many Somali people have made Northamptonshire their home and are now keen to reveal a little more about their country’s culinary culture.

Labelled as a failed state, Somalia is finally on the long road to recovery, but is their new constitution holding them back?

Whilst the country’s new constitution may be deemed a success, many have argued that it is just a $60 million panacea that is creating further problems for the re-emerging Somali democracy. The aim was, amongst other things, to promote human rights, however, the 2012 constitution legalises discriminatory ethnic nepotism, or clanism, in the form of the so-called 4.5 formula. This is the system, which gives the each of the four major Somali clans 61 seats of the new 275-member Federal Parliament, leaving the remaining 31 seats for the combined remaining minority clans.

However, the constitution goes further, incentivising clan-based balkanisation. It has already grandfathered certain clan-based political entities such as Puntland and Galmudug as semi-autonomous federal states, and it grants them discretions to go into deals with any foreign entity they wish for oil explorations, mining of minerals etc.

On the one hand, Article 44, which deals with Natural Resources, states that: “The allocation of the natural resources of the Federal Republic of Somalia shall be negotiated by, and agreed upon, by the Federal Government and the Federal Member States in accordance with this Constitution.”

On the other hand, Article 142 (1), which deals with existing Federal Member States in Somalia provides a major loophole. “Until such time that all the Federal Member States of Somalia are established and the adopted Federal Member State Constitutions are harmonized with the Somali Federal Constitution, the Federal Member States existing prior to the provisional adoption of this Provisional Constitution by a National Constituent Assembly shall retain and exercise powers endowed by their own State Constitution.”

While the constitution is peppered with enough articles to keep the fire burning, it is in these two particular articles that the so-called Ghost-lords, those keen to exploit the country’s natural resources, hit the jackpot. The constitution restricts the Federal Government from engaging in any deals on natural resources, yet allows the Federal States to engage as they please. Under such temptation, who—save a few—would be interested in working and sacrificing to save and sustain the state?

Eight months ago, like a few other insightful analysts, I warned against the danger woven into the new constitution. In an article (bluntly) titled A Constitution of Ambiguity and Deferment, I wrote: “If the new parliament does not make the necessary changes as soon as it assumes its responsibilities, the new constitution could, among other things, undermine the profound security and stabilization accomplishments of recent months.”

The foundation of every peaceful nation is an unambiguous set of laws or a thoroughly negotiated and ratified social contract. As I argued in the aforementioned article, this basic premise could not have been lost on the framers of the current constitution. By framers, I refer to those who, perhaps due to their naïveté or political myopia, decided that the best way to sustain peace in Somalia is to put the cart before the horse.

They accepted a dysfunctional constitution that did not clearly define demarcation of authority, land ownership, or resources-sharing as a legitimate prerequisite to “emerge out of the transitional status”.

So, the moral argument that helped pass this embarrassment of a constitution was: “Reconciliation can wait. We are sick and tired of being in transition; let’s just accept anything handed to us in order to regain our sovereignty.”

What is the point of sovereignty, if the treatment is more or less the same? Sovereignty is not a badge worn as a façade; it is a right, and for that reason, it should be demanded and protected.

Since the matter at hand cannot be remedied by judiciary intervention, as that branch is currently being revamped, and this matter needs more than constitutional interpretation, the Federal Parliament has the duty to step in to deescalate the steadily mounting clan tension, and fix the constitution. As an institution that includes practically all Somali clans, the Parliament indeed has the legitimate authority.

Speaker Mohamed Osman Jawari and all MPs who are willing to put their nation’s interest above their personal, clan or regional interests should take this bull by the horns.

Author

Abukar ArmanWebsite | Twitter Abukar is a DiploAct (a fusion of diplomacy and activism), a former diplomat and a recovering political analyst. You can email him on abukar_arman [at] yahoo [dot] com

Shams Hussain says third-party involvment hindering Somali peacemaking efforts. Shams Hussain, an academic who recently visited Dubai, said there are also ‘invisible actors’ intervening in Somalia.

Dubai: An analyst on Somali affairs has said foreign intervention in Somalia — left without a central government since the 1991 ousting of its then military ruler — is “the root cause of civil strife”.

Shams Hussain, an academic who holds dual Somali and British nationality, said: “One would argue that 90 per cent of the problems in Somalia are based on foreign intervention. They include regional and international actors.”

Shams, on a recent visit to the UAE, identified the regional actors as mainly the neighbouring countries of Ethiopia and Kenya, as well as the “IGAD counters”. IGAD — the Intergovernmental Authority on Development — is a regional bloc of east African nations including Somalia. One of its stated objectives is to support “the prevention, management and resolution of inter-state and intra-state conflicts through dialogue.”

Meanwhile, the international actors, according to Shams, include the US and the European Union. In an exclusive interview with Gulf News, Shams said: “There are also invisible actors who intervene through others. Piracy and the [Al Qaida-linked] Al Shabab militia were created by outsiders.

“But exactly who is behind it all, I don’t know. What I do know is that without outside support and a blind eye, they would not have lasted this long.” Shams pointed out that divisions in Somalia go back to the colonial period that led it to be divided into five parts: British Somaliland, French Somaliland, Italian Somalia, the Ogaden-Haud and reserved areas (given by the UK to Ethiopia) and the Northern Frontier Districts (ceded to Kenya by the UK).

She added that in 1991, the former British Somaliland in the north west dissolved the union and engaged in separate peace processes inside the country, which were “locally funded, implementing and electing a government and a parliament that is also regulated by the House of Elders.” However, Somaliland so far remains unrecognised internationally.

“Somaliland emerged as a hot potato to potential interventionists. On the one hand, its stability was not conducive for foreign troops. When they were united Somalis were accused of being ‘expansionists’ and not adhering to the boundaries left by the European colonial powers. When divided, they were accused of being secessionists.”

Meanwhile, developments have taken a different turn in the southern regions, Shams added. “The southern region — a former Italian colony — branched out differently. Two decades have passed with internal conflict and despite 13 peacemaking conferences worldwide the likelihood of peace stays delayed,” she said. From 2000 to 2012, a series of internationally recognised ‘transitional’ institutions were formed. Today, a permanent Federal Government of Somalia is in place. “We are pleased that the so-called transitional governments ended,” Shams said, but though “the recognition of the Somali federal government is a positive step, one has to bear in mind that there are foreign troops inside Somalia. This time they are fellow Africans funded by international actors who purport to ‘help stability’. When asked why foreign powers would be interested in Somalia, Shams replied: “The answer is simple: strategy and resources. Somalia is located in one of the most strategic places in the world, connecting Africa, Asia and Europe through shipping lines of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, not to mention the Suez Canal and the oil routes of Arabia.”

She added that Somalia is rich in mineral resources, including oil and gas, livestock, agriculture and fishery. “I think both the regional and international actors should revisit the nature of their involvement in Somalia. These actors are talking about their security, but nobody mentions the sovereignty infringement of Somalia, the illegal fishing, toxic waste dumping,” she said.

Despite the challenges facing Somalia, Shams remains an optimist, putting her faith in the spirit of her people. “Somalis have suffered a lot, but they exhibited a magnificent strength and resilience.”

Source: Gulf news